State v. Chandler, 95-545

• Decision Date: 20 August 1996
• Docket Number: No. 95-545,95-545
• Citation: 277 Mont. 476,922 P.2d 1164
• Parties: STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jamie Scott CHANDLER, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

Page 1164

922 P.2d 1164

277 Mont. 476

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jamie Scott CHANDLER, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 95-545.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs July 18, 1996.

Decided Aug. 20, 1996.

William F. Hooks, Appellate Defender, Helena, for defendant and appellant.

Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General; Jennifer Anders, Assistant Attorney General, Helena; Robert M. McCarthy, County Attorney; Brad Newman, Deputy County Attorney, Butte, for plaintiff and respondent.

TURNAGE, Chief Justice.

Jamie Scott Chandler pled guilty before the Second Judicial District Court, Silver Bow County, to felony escape. He appeals an issue reserved, concerning the court's denial of his motion to dismiss on the ground that a pre-release inmate is not subject to "official detention" within the meaning of the escape statute, § 45-7-306, MCA. We affirm.

The issue is whether Chandler was lawfully convicted of felony escape pursuant to § 45-7-306, MCA, as interpreted in recent decisions of this Court, when having been placed in a prerelease center while serving a term of imprisonment for a felony conviction, he fled one morning instead of going to his place of employment.

In an affidavit in support of the State's application for leave to file an information, the prosecutor represented that Chandler was serving a term of imprisonment as a result of a felony conviction in Flathead County, Montana. He was assigned to the Butte Pre-Release Center and was employed by The Montana Standard, a local newspaper.

Chandler failed to return to the Pre-Release Center after work on October 14, 1994. When he did not return, Pre-Release Center staff contacted his employer and were told that Chandler had failed to report for work on that date.

Upon determining that Chandler had escaped, law enforcement authorities obtained a warrant for his arrest. He was arrested in Spokane, Washington, in December 1994 and was extradited and returned to the Montana State Prison.

Chandler moved to dismiss the information on three grounds, including the ground that he was not subject to "official detention" as required by § 45-7-306, MCA, the statute defining the offense of escape. The State opposed the motion, and the District Court denied it without a hearing. Chandler subsequently entered a plea agreement with the State, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.

Was Chandler lawfully convicted of felony escape pursuant to § 45-7-306, MCA, as interpreted in recent decisions of this Court, when having been placed in a prerelease center while serving a term of imprisonment for a felony conviction, he fled one morning instead of going to his place of employment?

For Chandler's conduct to constitute an escape as proscribed by § 45-7-306, MCA, the State must establish that Chandler knowingly or purposely removed himself from or failed to return to "official detention." Official detention includes

imprisonment which resulted from a conviction for an offense, confinement for an offense, confinement of a person charged with an offense, detention by a peace officer pursuant to arrest, detention for extradition or deportation, placement in a community corrections facility or program, supervision while under a supervised release program, participation in a county jail work program under 7-32-2225 through 7-32-2227, or any lawful detention for the purpose of the protection of the welfare of the person detained or for the protection of society. "Official detention" does not include supervision of probation or parole, constraint incidental to release on bail, or an unlawful arrest unless the person arrested employed physical force, a threat of physical force, or a weapon to escape.

Section 45-7-306(1), MCA.

The District Court's denial of the motion to dismiss was a conclusion of law that the State could prosecute Chandler for escape because he was subject to official detention. This Court reviews conclusions of law to determine whether the district court's interpretation of the law was correct. State v. Christensen (1994), 265 Mont. 374, 375-76, 877 P.2d 468, 469.

In State v. Roberts (1996), 275 Mont. 365, 912 P.2d 812, Roberts had been released from the Montana State Prison into the parole-related furlough program under § 46-23-215(3), MCA. The issue was whether Roberts was "subject to official detention" in a "supervised release program" as described in § 45-7-306(1), MCA. This Court concluded that the parole-related furlough program was not a "supervised release program," and that Roberts was not therefore "subject to official detention" and could not be prosecuted for escape. Roberts, 912 P.2d at 815.

In this case, too, the issue is whether the appellant was "subject to official detention" under § 45-7-306(1), MCA. However, here, the State argues that the Butte Pre-Release Center is a "community corrections facility or program," not a "supervised release program." Therefore, Roberts does not control.

The correctional policy of the State of Montana is to deal with nonviolent offenders in ways other than imprisonment. Section 46-18-101(3)(b), MCA. Section 46-18-105, MCA, authorizes the Department of Corrections to provide community corrections facilities or programs for the rehabilitation of nonviolent felony offenders as authorized under the Montana Community Corrections Act, Title 53, Chapter 30, part 3, MCA. A "community corrections facility or program" is defined under the Act as

a community-based or community-oriented facility or program, other than a jail, that:

(a) is operated by a unit of local government, a tribal government, or a nongovernmental agency; and

(b) provides programs and services to aid offenders in:

(i) obtaining and holding regular employment;

(ii) enrolling in and maintaining academic courses;

(iii) participating in vocational training programs;

(iv) utilizing the resources of the community to meet their personal and family needs;

(v) obtaining the benefits of specialized treatment services that exist within the community; and

(vi) paying restitution or performing community restitution to crime victims.

Section 53-30-303(2), MCA. While this definition does not specifically refer to prerelease centers, it is clear that they are considered community corrections facilities under the Act.

Section 53-1-202(2), MCA, identifies correctional services provided by the Department of Corrections. That statute provides that adult correctional services include, in relevant part:

(c) appropriate community-based programs for the placement, supervision, and rehabilitation of adult felons who meet the criteria developed by the department for placement:

(i)...